I always wondered what became of ACTION, of which I had the misfortune to be part of for 2 or 3 of my five years. Thanks for filling me in.

In 1984 I had other things on my plate (getting back into the international business world) so I missed the whole thing. Good riddance, I say!

As I recall recruiting was a separate part of ACTION and not directly a part of the Peace Corps, and so its people wouldn’t have felt any obligation under the five-year rule and could legitimately be excused from following it after the breakup.

David Searles

Blaming politics for her waivers of the five year law is another excuse that makes PC an “‘agency’ that obeys Congress’ political whims.” PC may be an executive agency with a political appointee running it, but that doesn’t mean it should be one of Obama’s pals, his wife, his kids, Bill or Hillary. The President can appoint a career professional like the NPCA Director just as easily as his nephew or grandpa. We don’t need a ‘caretaker’ Director for a US government agency leading the world. Caretakers work at graveyards. She got her work by being allowed more time at the agency. Others weren’t allowed equal time.

I’m available for Director and clear the five year opportunity law fine. I’ve never worked for PC as a staff member and never will unless I can run it.

At the same time, I was grateful for the constant turnover of staff around me, because they kept me vital. We complemented each other well: I could ground them when they asked me to, while they kept my eyes open constantly to the new. Having been in that unique position, then, I’d be all for keeping a few valued key players around for a while but also for maintaining the five-year rule as the standard. I know such a situation is pie-in-the-sky–I have no idea how it could be implemented fairly–but in my situation it worked.

On lacking an institutional memory: What I discovered is that the core problems of running the agency never changed–they still haven’t–with or without dinosaurs like me. The tension between recruitment and medical processing, for example, is as strong as it ever was; the needs of the two functions are diametrically opposed and conflict seems inevitable and intractable, no matter who is in charge. And the age-old question, “what is the Peace Corps? Development or US public relations?” will never go away because the two representative sides will never truly understand each other. They’re literally in different worlds.

Finally, FOS’s comments about Jody Olsen must be responded to: say what you will about her ultimate effectiveness, she has not received any series of “waivers” to stay at the agency indefinitely. She has,in fact, worked at the Peace Corps only when her party was in power. (She’s there now as a caretaker until the Obamas bring in somebody of their own.) The fact that she was always brought back speaks volumes about her perceived value, even though she was cut off at the knees by Bush II and I began to see her continued employ there in essentially a eunuch role as a sop to the Bush I folks. But good or bad, she has not been bending any rules to stay at the Peace Corps.

I, too, do not know the individual being discussed, and realize the discussion has nothing to do with his relative merits.

I can see, however, that a more serious debate could be held on the merits of the rule applying (or not) to the Director. I think the decision should go off on the example it sets for the rest of the agency that even the director position should be governed by the spirit of the 5-year rule. I really do not think that the applicability is the same as to the more traditional staff position that was being addressed by the rule (and, I think, by David’s discussion of it).

We need the enthusiasm and freshness for the Director of the Agency in the same way we need it in the trenches. Even Sarge might not have been as exciting and engaging in his 10th year!

We need to enforce the five year opportunity law for all employees, including the ‘volunteers.’ They should be treated equally and have the same options as the staff.

Some points-

The institutional memory was the excuse for the creation and funding of NPCA, morepeacecorps, etc. These are fully funded by the US government and they recently closed the fund that was supposed to make them self funding. We now have these and the cost how much? 5 million, ten million? They have no 5 year opportunity law?

The ‘personal relationships’ at the agency are what are holding us back. We constantly have to deal with legacies from Kennedy or the democratic party that use PC and it’s agency status for jobs, money and a place to retire when they’re done. The five year opportunity law gets people work, like RPCVs. It also makes it less attractive to the political bureaucrats. Congress also doesn’t want and will always vote against any type of term limit, like five years. So, we’re up against these and a staff that wants the law changed. There is also legislation to waive the 8 year presidential term limit.

The arguments that the staff gets comfortable just before they have to leave is really the nature of development work and any RPCV knows this. The new five year budgets that are ’sustainable’ are an argument that came from development workers in a survey that went to Congress. This is simply another excuse for more money and farming out PCs to ngos and other programs like PEPFAR. They cost 47,000 a year or 57,000 with the other budget and get paid 5% of that? The NGOs and programs would be better off hiring their own people. PCs need the five years just like the staff if the sustainability argument is used for something other than more cash and a five year budget that can’t be changed and is voted on outside the regular US government budget by Congress just before the Presidential elections.

A few years ago the Director of PC OIG was before Congress(something that isn’t done anymore or not reported) and lobbied for the end to the five year opportunity law. Congress wouldn’t waive it. He insisted that the offices of OIG be an independent agency and he got what he wanted, The Office of OIG is an independent agency. They perform a law enforcement function at PC and this is also an intelligence issue. DSS employees have a new five year law that led to counter intelligence problems overseas. The five year law was probably the issue rather than the CIA.

The retreads are there because of the enforcement of the five year law and this is the complaint, while people like Jody Olsen get waivers for unknown reasons. There is also an integument that PC is already what we’re worried about it becoming. So, Obama is going to appoint another Harvard/Kennedy pal to an agency that is used for it’s work and money and pass on a logical succession for PC that would be the Director of the NPCA. We could still be the agency Congress wants and be more professional in our hiring.

We need to be more professional in our hiring, but we suffer from the perception of being and agency and a ’boutique’ for political pals, dems or legacies from Kennedy or Harvard or someone like Obama that is a big fan. His 250,000 ‘volunteers’ and their $1 above poverty wages and a semester of school reference PC and we just signed an MOU with CN&CS. We are an excuse for a legacy that might not be serving the people who are hired; this is what we need to avoid and it’s impossible with ‘gradual hardening of the bureaucratic arteries.’

I think we need someone who has worked in PC that has done everything like the rules state. I’m available, but don’t know Obama too well.